Ok, so this is where our spoiler policy gets a little complicated. Asking fans not to reveal plot details is one thing, but when the cast blab stuff in public interviews… well, we’d be remiss not to the quote the whole thing. And that’s what we’re about to do. The spoiler in question centres around a gag and the loose plot of an episode. You have been warned.

So, during an interview with Triangulation–some American video podcast or other hosted by some nice American men with American names advertising American companies–Robert covers a number of topics including, obviously, Red Dwarf. It basically goes like this: awkward introduction where the host gets the name of Scrapheap Challenge wrong … *spin on* … News from Gardenia … *spin on* … general Red Dwarf chat … *spin on* … electric cars … *spin on* … Carpool … *spin on* … ah, here’s the good stuff, 37:56 in:

ROBERT: There is a wonderful, and I’m not going to give away the plot… there’s a moment that really stands out… there’s some time travel in Red Dwarf, where the time travelling machine is of a Swedish design and we have to put it together ourselves and we do it so badly, of course, it goes wrong and there’s a fabulous episode where we’re basically searching for a way to get back to our own time. But we’ve gone back in time quite a long way and we’re on Earth and we meet a very significant figure and it’s buried into the dialogue very beautifully and it doesn’t sort of reveal itself until this moment when the very famous historic figure turns around and introduces himself. And when you’re rehearsing this you’re not sure this is going to work, it looks a bit half baked and you’re not quite convinced and when that moment happened in front of the audience the actor playing the significant historical figure couldn’t even say his line, they all got it immediately, the laugh was deafening. And that was a really wonderful moment and quite a complex… you know, Red Dwarf storylines are not simple, they’re dealing with some very complicated concepts and time, space and… you know, tears in the fabric of spacetime and all that sort of thing and for the audience to get it that clearly, they knew where we were, why we were there and who this person was before we even said what we thought was the joke line.

I remember the gag about the ‘time machine’ being of Swedish design being a good one and it’s saved from being a bit hackneyed by being played very well. His recounting of the scene with the ‘significant historical figure’ sounds slightly exaggerated but I do remember a big a laugh before the proper reveal. It’s definitely a great moment.

Of course, we can’t actually contribute to any proper speculation based on this because we know who the historical figure is and have seen the episode recorded. You can probably guess the episode he’s talking about based on our set reports, but obviously we’ll have to ask that anyone who is aware of what he’s referring to refrain from revealing anything in the comments.

Amusingly, earlier in the interview Robert mentions his strict NDA and then, half an hour later, he’s saying something that almost certainly breaks it in a number of interesting ways. Ultimately, though, I think these spoilers are pretty harmless (much like his little GELF slip up) and should only serve to keep everyone’s anticipation levels high.

I felt a bit sorry for Bobby. They kept pressing him for details and he was trying to be careful to start with. I know that went out the window, but I suppose when you’re being pressed then that’s the reaction. Quite a lot to give away of course, but at least he didn’t say who the person was.

I’m thinking Jesus Christ, as a guess (trust me, I don’t know, and hope that guess is wrong…). Though really I shouldn’t even have read this and I’m not looking at ANYTHING else from now on! Not even a single synopsis.

Btw G&T are definitely right to post this and other bits of revealed info of this nature. As long as there’s nothing spoilery in the title then it’s cool.

Normally I’d be a bit peeved about a spoiler being (sort of) revealed…but it’s Robert. I cant help but love him.
This has just increased my hype for the new series a lot and I thought it couldn’t get any higher. I’ve always liked the time-travelling focused episodes of Red Dwarf (like Backwards and Tikka to Ride – dont hurt me) so this should be a laugh.

> I’ve always liked the time-travelling focused episodes of Red Dwarf (like Backwards and Tikka to Ride – dont hurt me) so this should be a laugh.

Agree. Dwarf has always done that sort of thing so well. Even though I don’t want to know annnnnything about annnything to do with the episodes…what I have heard/read about this one makes me smile because it sounds like the Dwarf we all know and love!

Plus anything I’d say would be said better by one or all of TOS, G&T and Gazpacho Soup.

Not necessarily. Different voices always bring something new to the table, and you’re often among the first to pick up on a lot of stuff, especially from Twitter. You’re often reporting stuff on G&T quicker than G&T is!

As all of us have said many, many times, more fansites – especially those actively producing reportage, opinion and analysis – can only be a good thing. And that’s whether they’re produced by people who come from the same sort of G&T mindset, or if they’re coming from somewhere diametrically opposed.

Not necessarily. Different voices always bring something new to the table, and you’re often among the first to pick up on a lot of stuff, especially from Twitter. You’re often reporting stuff on G&T quicker than G&T is!

As all of us have said many, many times, more fansites – especially those actively producing reportage, opinion and analysis – can only be a good thing. And that’s whether they’re produced by people who come from the same sort of G&T mindset, or if they’re coming from somewhere diametrically opposed.

I’ll give it some thought.

But if I end up writing an article on why Series VIII is utterly brilliant and why everybody who doesn’t agree is a fucking idiot then you only have yourself to blame.

Atheist interpretation:
Forgetting the Christ bit, in 23 Ad you’d have run into a lot of people called Jesus of course. It was as common a name as John. It’s been speculated that at least some the stories in the Bible are a combination of stories about different men of the same name, that have become greatly exagerated over time.

It’s not the existence of a man called Jesus that I generally dispute. It’s the ‘miracles’ he supposedly performed (which at best could be attributed to exaggeration, hearsay, trickery or illusions and at worst were flat out lies and deceit) and the notion of being the ‘son of God’.

As an atheist, I can buy that Jesus was real. But to believe he existed is to know that, if the words credited to him are true, the guy was a malicious charlatan and liar.

Rimmer’s got incredibly inconsistent religious beliefs, doesn’t he? Even if you ignore his Christian rock CDs in VIII (which I do, frequently and without remorse) there’s still his mention of a “lovely service” in Timeslides. Unless he’s talking about a restaurant.

> Even if you ignore his Christian rock CDs in VIII (which I do, frequently and without remorse)

Ditto. I’m a little more tolerant than most when it comes to series VIII (don’t love it, don’t loathe it), but the Christian Rock CDs is one of the things that annoys me the most over the course of the entire series.

> Even if you ignore his Christian rock CDs in VIII (which I do, frequently and without remorse) there’s still his mention of a “lovely service” in Timeslides.

I’m sure Andrew’s picked up on this before somewhere, actually – can’t remember where, though, or what the thrust of the point (other than “Actually, you can make it fit”) was. Might just be that you don’t necessarily have to be religious to, aesthetically, appreciate church. Nor do you necessarily have to believe in God to go along with a particular religion’s customs, of course.

Like Rimmer, I don’t believe in God. I’m also opposed to the dogmatic nature of most organised religion. However, I think Jesus was a pretty ace dude, and the core fundamental principle of Christianity – “be excellent to each other” – is a good one to live by, even if you don’t have spiritual-based reasons for doing so (apparently there is such a recognised thing as “Christian atheism”, and it probably comes closest to covering how I’d describe myself). And while I don’t do it myself, I can totally see the reasoning behind getting involved in the activities of a nicer church even if you don’t believe in the supernatural element.

So yeah. I can totally buy Rimmer – especially given his messed up and conflicted upbringing and background – not believing in God, but still going to church out of custom even when there’s no-one around to tell him to.

I’m pretty sure it is a mistranslation (or misunderstanding of the original text) when it says that Mary was a virgin. It doesn’t say that she is.

As I understand it, it’s mistranslated from young woman. Virginity never comes into it. Even without mistranslation though, you’re dealing with fairly uninformed writers in a time with no real scientific understanding.

>the core fundamental principle of Christianity – “be excellent to each other” – is a good one to live by,

You’re thinking of the core principle of Bill And Ted’s Excellent Adventure.

The core fundamental principle of Christianity is to love God/Jesus above all others including your own family and your own life. (Matthew 10) Sure, ‘do unto others’ is in there, but the most basic and often reenforced (usually in some sort of way involving blood sacrifice) tenet is that if you’re not subservient and worshipful of a jealous, violent (slave endorsing, rape endorsing) yet all-loving God, he will ensure that you’re tortured forever.

Also Christianity only states to ‘be excellent to each other’ in set parameters. Don’t be excellent to homosexuals, stone them to death. Don’t be excellent to women, tell them to shut up, express no opinions, serve man and force them to marry their rapists (because ‘he has humbled her’). Don’t be excellent to slaves. You can beat them, within reason.

If you’re using the Bible as your basis that Jesus was a ‘pretty ace dude’ (which is after all the only document of his supposed actions and words), I’d suggest you give Luke 19:27 a read:

“these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me”

Rimmer’s got incredibly inconsistent religious beliefs, doesn’t he? Even if you ignore his Christian rock CDs in VIII (which I do, frequently and without remorse) there’s still his mention of a “lovely service” in Timeslides. Unless he’s talking about a restaurant.

Now there I have sympathy. One of my favourite musicians is a guy called Neal Morse, who is one of the most prolific and talented songwriters since Paul McCartney. In the late nineties, he believes he heard the voice of God talking to him directly, telling him to leave all the bands he was in and write a series of Christian concept albums. Problem is that while it’s lyrically painful, musically his stuff still sounds the same and is still very good. As an atheist, it does make going to one of his gigs a bit weird though, especially when he stops part way through a song for prayers.

The core fundamental principle of Christianity is to love God/Jesus above all others including your own family and your own life. (Matthew 10) Sure, ‘do unto others’ is in there, but the most basic and often reenforced (usually in some sort of way involving blood sacrifice) tenet is that if you’re not subservient and worshipful of a jealous, violent (slave endorsing, rape endorsing) yet all-loving God, he will ensure that you’re tortured forever.

Also Christianity only states to ‘be excellent to each other’ in set parameters. Don’t be excellent to homosexuals, stone them to death. Don’t be excellent to women, tell them to shut up, express no opinions, serve man and force them to marry their rapists (because ‘he has humbled her’). Don’t be excellent to slaves. You can beat them, within reason.

If you’re using the Bible as your basis that Jesus was a ‘pretty ace dude’ (which is after all the only document of his supposed actions and words), I’d suggest you give Luke 19:27 a read:

“these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me”

Can you look over my post again and please pick out the part where I mentioned anything about paying any attention to anything the Bible says?

You’ve managed to infer a message that is completely contrary to what I was actually saying. Everything you’re talking about there are things that have been added afterwards by the organised religion that followed – the same organised religion that I’ve already said that, in the main, I object to.

However, Jesus of Nazareth was a real man who existed. This is fact. He went around telling people that they should be groovy to one-another instead of fighting all the time, and faced persecution for it. This is also fact. He was, therefore, a pretty sound dude in my opinion, and when I say “core tenets of Christianity”, I mean “of the message/teachings of Christ the bloke himself”, not “of all the bullshit that was added afterwards by people with agendas to push”.

I’d hoped that was pretty clear from, you know, everything else I said in that post. Apparently not.

>Can you look over my post again and please pick out the part where I mentioned anything about paying any attention to anything the Bible says?

You said Jesus was a pretty ace dude and that the basic core principle of Christianity was a good one to live by.

I tend to assume that people are basing their opinions of Jesus and Christianity on the Bible, due to the fact that all information on Jesus is contained in the Bible, and the religion of Christianity is based on the Bible.

What’s this alternate source you’re getting your info on Jesus from if it’s not the New Testament?

>However, Jesus of Nazareth was a real man who existed. This is fact.

>He went around telling people that they should be groovy to one-another instead of fighting all the time, and faced persecution for it. This is also fact.

What’s your evidence for either of these ‘facts’? Jesus’ existence is far from a proven certainty and the only documents of his teachings are those in the Bible, the same Bible where Jesus says he wants his enemies killed in front of him.

I’m so dumbstruck by your question that I can’t even begin to put together a coherent response to it.

Either you’re on the windup, or you’re painfully underinformed on this subject. Either way: yes. There is lots and lots of historical evidence of the existence of Jesus that has nothing to do with the Bible. It’s not like he lived at the dawn of man. He existed during the era of the Roman Empire. They had a tendency to write things down.

>There is lots and lots of historical evidence of the existence of Jesus that has nothing to do with the Bible.

It shouldn’t be too much to ask you to provide/link one single piece of non-Bible evidence that Jesus Christ existed and spent his life going around telling people to be good to each other then.

In my ‘painfully uninformed’ years of studying the subject I got the impression that there were in fact no known documents containing specific written references to Jesus Christ or his good deeds from during his own lifetime.

It shouldn’t be too much to ask you to provide/link one single piece of non-Bible evidence that Jesus Christ existed and spent his life going around telling people to be good to each other then.

In my ‘painfully uninformed’ years of studying the subject I got the impression that there were in fact no known documents containing specific written references to Jesus Christ or his good deeds from during his own lifetime.

Well, if you’ve spent years studying the subject, then you know the sort of thing I’m likely to cite – Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny etc.. So it’s pretty clear, then, that this isn’t a debate about whether or not they exist, but instead whether or not you believe them (and I note you subtly shifted the parameters by saying “from during his own lifetime”, which wasn’t a part of my initial assertion, so already you’re nudging me towards losing), specifically whether or not you believe they apply to the same person that the Bible talks about.

And that means we’re turning it into a matter of opinion and interpretation. In which case, I’ll concede that my using the word “fact” was too much of an absolute, and I’ll amend my words to “I believe it to be fact”. But either way, beyond that, it’s not really a debate I’m willing to go into much further here, largely as it’s not one I especially care about all that much.

But what I care about is having my words taken out of context, and used to imply that I meant the exact opposite of what I said – especially when what I was originally saying boiled down to “I think the message that people should be nice to one-another is a good thing”. I don’t really appreciate that you took that point and decided to try and make a fight out of it.

And I was deliberately referencing Bill and Ted. Obviously.

(Incidentally, this conversation’s going to look even more ridiculous if the “historical figure” in the episode doesn’t turn out to be Jesus, isn’t it?)

Oh, but I do apologise for calling you painfully underinformed if it’s the case that you’re aware of stuff but choose not to put stock in its authenticity/relevance, rather than genuinely believing that there’s nothing outside the Bible. I’ll give you that one.

I don’t see how suggesting that your opinions of Jesus as a good man who went around telling people to be nice may be sourced to the Bible was taking your words out of context or trying to start a fight.

But you asserted that your opinions on Jesus and Christianity were not Bible based:

“However, Jesus of Nazareth was a real man who existed. This is fact.” and “He went around telling people that they should be groovy to one-another instead of fighting all the time, and faced persecution for it. This is also fact.”

Telling people things are ‘facts’ and later saying that they’re not actually facts, but ‘things you believe to be facts’ (i.e. beliefs) strikes me as poor form, particularly when you’re rudely accusing people of being ‘painfully underinformed’.

EDIT: (Which I see you’ve mentioned in a later post now so I’ll forget that)

When asked to provide evidence for what you were then calling facts you said that there was lots and lots of historical evidence for Jesus and that: “He existed during the era of the Roman Empire. They had a tendency to write things down.”

I did not shift the parameters to being evidence from during his own lifetime. You already had, and made it clear this was the basis for the verification of your opinions (again, Jesus existed, preached peace). I asked out of these apparent tons of evidence for you to provide a single example that backs up your opinion. Not just sketchy accounts that a person called Jesus existed, but that Jesus Christ travelled around spreading a message of goodwill and was persecuted for it. Nothing you have cited can be said to fully verify this and make it a fact. Besides which, surely you can agree that accounts and documents outside of his own lifetime is questionable at best, since it would be inevitably based on hearsay to some degree.

>And that means we’re turning it into a matter of opinion and interpretation.

No, ‘we’ are not.

My assertion was that the Jesus Christ of common perception may have never existed. If you’re going to one minute say ‘Jesus existed, and he was a good man who spread a message of peace and that’s a fact’, and suggest that there’s scads of incontrovertible evidence and that I’m basically an uneducated moron for even questioning it, then revert to ‘well, I believe it to be a fact’, then you’re dealing in opinion.

Anyway, I’ll leave it at that, we both know what they say about arguing on the internet.

>(Incidentally, this conversation’s going to look even more ridiculous if the “historical figure” in the episode doesn’t turn out to be Jesus, isn’t it?)

I’ll be surprised if it is. I hope it’s not Hitler again though, he’s appeared in enough sitcoms.

Jesus Christ…there’s every chance he really existed. I believe that and so do countless others, Christian or otherwise (I’m not religious at all).

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest so, much of it pre-dating any form of Christian Bible. It’s an accepted fact that the crucifiction did happen, regardless of all other grey areas. For the crucifiction to have happened then surely that points to the guy being crucified actually existing, right? ;)

As for Jesus’s story, whether he did all the good that we are told…it’s like when you exaggerate some daring feat one of your mates did on a night out…which you can’t even really remember that well cause you were off your face…then another mate steps in with an amped up version of what you just said…and so on…and so on…and before you know it it’s legend.

I’m an atheist, but I started going to a very liberal Episcopal church when I moved to a new city and wanted to make local friends. The head pastor is a very inspiring speaker and emphasizes Jesus the humanitarian. He says that the apostles (especially Matthew) often misunderstood or flat out changed Jesus’s words to make him seem less groovy, to use Seb’s word, than he seems to have been from the early scholarly texts.

I got into volunteering and social activism thanks to my church, which makes me feel worthwhile after years of wavering between aimlessness and hopelessness. Although I don’t believe in God or the miracles, I do know that not all churches are about ideology and dogma.

To me, I don’t give a shit if Jesus preached some lovely principles which we would all do well to abide by. Whoopeedoo, I don’t need to be told to be humane to other people, and I don’t need religion to keep me on the straight and narrow. Because I am humane, and I do keep on the straight and narrow as much as any decent, right-thinking person does, and there’s no God in my life.

But again, it comes down to this – if you believe Jesus existed and went around preaching all this great, moralistic stuff, you have to also believe (seeing as it’s coming from the same source and if you chose to believe only the bits you want then you’d may as well be Christian) that he went around telling people he was the literal son of God and putting in place the general principles of societal conditioning that make our world such a messy place.

So as well as apparently being a good source of (moral) fibre, he was also a deluded liar, quite possibly a madman, a fantasist and maybe the single individual who has caused more problems for the planet than anybody else in the millenia to follow. If he was real. Which I’m inclined to believe he was.

If Jesus came along today, acting the way we are told he did, he would at best be a Derren Brown or David Blaine type figure or at worst, he would be incarcerated or ridiculed for being a David Icke style maniac.

Carlito, a morality debate sounds fascinating haha and thanks Mabel, nice to be here. Can’t wait for the new series, discovered Dwarf in 2008 on Dave, the episode Psiren, where Rimmer has to re-charge and disappears, I remember thing “wtf”, not realising it, I stumbled upon one of the greates comedies ever!

What a brilliant point at which to discover there is a hollogramme in the TV show you’ve turned over onto. :-) It’s obviously established in show 1, but ironic it’s re-established in detail at the start of the very show you tuned into half way through, but to not know that and suddenly have a character fade off screen must have been a shock. Welcome, great to hear Dave is still finding new audiences. Now that debate you wanted. Which episodes do you like most and which bits dont you like?

Thanks, it was quite a strange moment to see it yes, I was suprised to discover how old Dwarf was too, when i went to buy the DVDs.

I think for me, weakest series, e.g. most forgetable all round, Series 4, I know there’s Ace Rimmer and it’s an apple genius moments in it, there are also some extremely weird episodes, like Rimmer causes a genocide in Waxworld episode. Favourite Series 5, 6 or 8 for me, I love the Starbug years but Series 8 for me is brilliant, i am aware I’m in the minority.

I love the first few episodes of series 7, but then there are some rather forgettable episodes later on with Able and Epideme. What about you Jonsmad?

When I first saw Red Dwarf (from just before Series 4) I didn’t really pay any attention to why Rimmer had a ‘H’ on his head, so I was genuinely was confused by the exchange in Series 5 in Holoship when they’re auditioning new holograms for the crew:

Harrison: ‘I think i’m better off where I am’

Cat: ‘But you’re dead!’

This line confused the hell out of me, I was too young to grasp the concept that a hologram was a dead person brought back. It’s only until I saw Norman Lovett in Young Ones, where my dad mentioning that he was the original Holly, that made me track down Series I, II and then it all made sense.

By then it had also never occurred to me that Rimmer had never really touched anything in the series I’d been watching. Genuinely wasn’t aware that he couldn’t.

>I was too young to grasp the concept that a hologram was a dead person brought back.

Danny – me too, even though I was introduced to Red Dwarf by some friends and we started with Future Echoes. Even with Holly’s explanation at the beginning, I was not on to the no touching rule. I thought of people walking through Rimmer as a completely different thing from him not being able to hold things or press buttons.

I had another moment of cluelessness watching the deleted scene of Rimmer painting a model airplane using those snazzy touch-gloves in the glass box. (“Wha? Oh yeah, he still can’t touch anything can he?”) It’s easy to forget because he is so active with dialog, it’s like the words are taking up the slack for what his hands can’t do.

Well I hope Chris’s hair has regrown enough so it matches the earlier scenes they filmed. I know in Red Dwarf YouTube channel launch video, he’d gone back to his regular look. Will be fun to play ‘spot the pick ups’ come series launch.

What Robert says seems to imply pick ups. I reckon some needed pick ups may have become obvious in the edit. I think they were only using 2 cameras for the live recordings and despite the fact that they would often move the cameras mid-scene, refilm a scene from different camera positions or do reaction shots, it wouldn’t surprise me if the need for more pick ups became obvious in the edit.

I don’t know much about exactly how much time they had for previous series, but isn’t it a bit strange that even 6 days of pick-up shoots couldn’t cover this when series V only had a single day? This post-production period is really starting to look like a complete cluster fuck.

Still, it’s going to create great article opportunities, identifying which scenes are from studio shoots, the pick-up week or this extra day.

Considering how difficult it must be to get all the cast together again, costumed up AND presumably a set or two being rebuilt, I seriously doubt it’s for anything less than absolutely essential pick-ups.

It’s fascinating to see the production and post-production running in real-time like this. It’s something we as fans were never privy to for almost the entire life of the show.

From my point of view, series I thru V just happened – the only pre-warning of a new series coming from the occasional tease on BBC2. From series VI thru VIII I seem to remember there being more widespread and fairly recent updates on the production, and Back To Earth was filmed with such speed it was over before we even knew about it pretty much. So to see the ups and downs of the show making process as it happens, is very interesting.

Series V was well-documented (after the fact) with it’s production woes – I only hope that the Series X documentary is as candid and honest about the music budget gaff, the problems with the model shoot, the many pick-ups that have been required.

I wonder how it’ll colour perception of the new series in the fans eyes. Will they be more forgiving of it given the troubles we’re aware of? How would we all have treated series V at the time, knowing how much grief there was behind the scenes?

I don’t know much about exactly how much time they had for previous series, but isn’t it a bit strange that even 6 days of pick-up shoots couldn’t cover this when series V only had a single day? This post-production period is really starting to look like a complete cluster fuck.
Still, it’s going to create great article opportunities, identifying which scenes are from studio shoots, the pick-up week or this extra day.

But on V, how many days were spent before the episode recording at the power station etc doing location filming? The location work made up for a fair amount of run time. I always got the sense that this filming wasn’t done in the week of the episode recording. At least for the bits in Back To Reality and the like anyway, I can’t remember when Terrorform’s was done.

Terrorform was the very first thing they shot for V, I think. But, yes, it’s a good point that past series had big pre-studio blocks to film location stuff, but even so X still had 6 whole days to get all the shit done. It’s really, really odd that they’re remounting for a single day, which is clearly not something they’d do on a whim considering how inefficient it must be, budget wise.

Terrorform was the very first thing they shot for V, I think. But, yes, it’s a good point that past series had big pre-studio blocks to film location stuff, but even so X still had 6 whole days to get all the shit done. It’s really, really odd that they’re remounting for a single day, which is clearly not something they’d do on a whim considering how inefficient it must be, budget wise.

Oh don’t get me wrong, it sounds worse than V, it just accounts for some of those 6 days. I’m guessing that the extra day is because of either a scene that couldn’t be fixed in post, or because they’ve realised in the edit that something doesn’t work without a linking scene. What’s most interesting to me is what they are going to do about sets. I mean, are there still any standing?

The sets have definitely been removed from K Stage, because there were pictures of it totally empty a few days after they wrapped. If you’re right about it being a linking scene they might end up being creative with and set it in a ship’s corridor somewhere rather than bothering to erect a set again (which gets more unlikely the more I think about it).

I think most productions have their “oh shit” moments where they’ve fucked up with budgets or models or realised they have to film something again. The only difference here is that we’re hearing about it in real time. Everything will come together, I have faith!

I think most productions have their “oh shit” moments where they’ve fucked up with budgets or models or realised they have to film something again. The only difference here is that we’re hearing about it in real time. Everything will come together, I have faith!

Indeed, it’s hardly the first time there’s been an extra scene filmed after filming has wrapped, and I see no cause for worry at the moment. I mean, they refilmed the ending to Only The Good at the last minute… and that turned out to be….

> This post-production period is really starting to look like a complete cluster fuck.

There’s at least 6 months until broadcast so it’s no big deal. Also, they obviously have the time and money to do this 1 day shoot (or, indeed, the model remount) otherwise it wouldn’t be happening.

I’m guessing Doug wants this series to be the best it can be, so if there’s chance to do an extra day of pickups then why wouldn’t he?

As for the content of this 1 day shoot… I would suggest it’ll be the cast in front of greenscreen, replacing a shot or two, maybe adding some needed closeups? Or some lines might have been deemed controversial, or something, and so will be changed.

As Danny said, they can paste in a background plate (it’s likely they shot some) or an entirely CGI environment, a la the amazing BtE Dwarf interiors.

I can’t imagine that they didn’t shoot plates of the sets, with their default lighting setup. They’d be fools not to, but i genuinely think it’s part of the production protocol that you shoot plates.

Remember, Mike Seymour said he was helping out ‘a bit’ so how much that ‘bit’ is is anyone’s guess. Although, I’m still sticking to the fact that he’s going to be creating the model shoot backgrounds, as if you look closely to the picture with the rear of the Dwarf present, there are motion tracking markers on the wall next to the model, similar to the way they shot the corridor scenes in BTE.

Remember, Mike Seymour said he was helping out ‘a bit’ so how much that ‘bit’ is is anyone’s guess. Although, I’m still sticking to the fact that he’s going to be creating the model shoot backgrounds, as if you look closely to the picture with the rear of the Dwarf present, there are motion tracking markers on the wall next to the model, similar to the way they shot the corridor scenes in BTE.

I’d guess he will also be doing bits like the unfilmed bit in episode 2.